August 2003 (Vol. 8 No.

4)

You were what you wore in Roman Law

Deciphering the dress codes of 1 Timothy 2:9-15

Bruce W. Winter

One unique aspect of the first century is the extent to which Roman law, including criminal law,
undergirded all aspects of society. This phenomenon was peculiar to that empire as Roman legal
historians contend that it was never replicated to the same extent in subsequent civilizations.
That being the case, one would expect that conventions concerning various spheres of life as
well as appropriate dress codes would have been reflected in Roman law.

In The Digest which codified Roman law and its interpretation, Roman legislators and jurists
made rulings based on the premise that in the society of their day ‘you were what you wore’.
This applied equally to men and women in daily life.

During the time of Augustus there were even sharper distinctions — observed in part by dress
and seating arrangements on public occasions such as the theatre and banquets.

Men were what they wore in Roman Law

The status of first-century citizens was readily identified from dress codes. Senators were the
highest class and were notionally social equals of the emperor. They wore a broad purple stripe
on their tunic (latus clavus), particular sandals and a gold ring. These and other senatorial privi-
leges were extended to all close relatives and descendants of a senator to the third generation.

Members of equires Romani had long required a property qualification and Augustus distin-
guished them more markedly from the senatorial class by establishing a financial differential.
They secured the right to wear the special gold ring of senators and to sit in the front rows of the
theatre. The clothes did not make the man but they certainly indicated who the man was in the
first century.

Women were what they wore in Roman Law

This was also true of women, both the modest married one and the chaste unmarried younger
women, as well as the hetairai, the high class prostitutes. These marital and moral categories
could also be decoded by their attire in the public place and have been recorded for posterity in
different statue types.

The modest wife and young woman:

The dress of the first-century married woman consisted of a considerable amount of fabric fal-
ling in folds from the shoulder. This was made from a non-transparent material. A mantle was
wrapped around it, part of which was draped on the top of her head as it had been for the first
time on her wedding day. This was the marriage
veil she subsequently always wore in public as a
sign to others of her marital status. Modest dress
was the hallmark of the respectable matron.
The young unmarried girl was portrayed in first-
century statue types which differed from those of
the matron described in the previous paragraph.
She did not wear the mantle over her head but
wrapped it around her body, drawing it across both
her breasts and her left hand was symbolically at
her side ready to guard her virginity.
The ‘new’ woman:
By contrast, see-through clothing had traditionally
been the provocative attire of the high class prosti-
tutes who entertained single and married men as
dinner companions and later, in what was politely
said to be ‘after dinners’, in that first-century un-
holy trinity of eating, drinking and sexual inter-
course. She was what she wore, and deliberately
so, given her profession.
In the late Republican period and the early empire
another type of married woman began to emerge,
designated by some ancient historians as the ‘new’
woman. She differed from the ‘modest’ wife, in-
deed the latter was epitomized by that one cardinal
virtue. Some of the ‘new’ married women began
to wear provocative clothing similar to that of the
hetairai and others felt the social pressure of their
peers to adopt this latest trend in dress.
Provocative dress:
In the 40’s AD Seneca the Younger, a contempo-
rary of Paul, with his usual elegant turn of phrase
wrote in a letter to his mother, ‘Never have you
fancied the kind of dress that exposed no greater
nakedness by being removed.’
The whole letter is enlightening because in it Se-
neca notes that pressure was on his mother and
other married women of his day to dress and live
as the ‘new’ woman did.
Hairstyles and accessories:
You also ‘were what you wore’ in terms of jew-
elry and hairstyles. In Greek, ‘dresses and gold’
was the standard phrase used of the accoutrements
of an hetairai. Pliny recorded that ‘women spend
more money on their ears with pearl earrings, than
on any other part of their person’. Seneca also
noted of his mother in the same letter, ‘Jewels
have not moved you, nor pearls. You have never
defiled your face with paints and cosmetics.’
Given the lead content in ancient cosmetics, it was
a good thing she had not.
Hairstyles also reflected a woman’s virtue (or a
lack of it). Juvenal commented on the incredibly
lavish nature of certain first-century hair-dos—‘So
important is the business of beautification; so nu-
merous are the tiers and storeys piled one upon
another on her head!’ The appearances of the pro-
miscuous woman and the matron had, in some
cases, become indistinguishable. Traditionally the
matron’s hairstyle had been relatively simple by
comparison.
Legal and other responses
Augustus’ legal intervention:
A number of legal moves were made to counter
what was seen in some circles as a new movement
among married women. For the first time in Ro-
man history, Augustus made adultery a criminal
offence in two highly significant pieces of legisla-
tion. Convicted adulteresses were forbidden to
dress like the modest wife but had to wear the toga
which was the dress code of heterai.
Roman law, as recorded in The Digest, reflects the
dictum that you were what you wore.
If anyone accosts…women [wives who] are dressed like prosti-
tutes, and not as mothers of families…if a woman is not dressed
as a matron [married woman] and some one calls out to her or
entices away her attendant, he will not be liable to action for in-
jury.
To the outsider, women were what they chose to
wear, and thus this stipulation in Roman law.
Imperial counter icons:
It was not only in the field of legislation that Au-
gustus sought to counter this ‘new’ woman. Impe-
rial coins and statue types of wives and female
members of emperors’ families were exported
throughout the cities of the empire as images of
modest women.
They were deliberately designed to be the fashion-
setters for married women, and their modest
dresses and marriage veils were intended to
counter new trends. Where they were portrayed
without their marriage veils it was for the purpose
of indicating the imperial hairstyle that was judged
to be appropriate for the married woman.
Did women take notice of these imperial icons of
fashion? Juvenal asked, ‘What woman will not fol-
low when an empress leads the way?’ Certainly,
those wishing to conform to the lifestyle of a mod-
est woman imitated the imperial image, while
‘new’ wives deliberately flouted the restrained
dress code of the Roman matron.
Dress wardens for women:
In Greece and other parts of the East, public occa-
sions and even pagan religious processions in hon-
our of Demeter were supervised by officially
elected women’s dress wardens (gunaikonomoi.)
They did not allow women who were dressed lav-
ishly or inappropriately to participate in these pro-
cessions. The wearing of transparent clothing is
specifically singled out as unacceptable.
They had the power to destroy such items and to
monitor these breaches of modest dress codes in
public life generally.
The Philosophical Schools’ responses
How did other groups in first-century society react
to the ‘new’ woman. Stoic and Neo-pythagorean
philosophical schools instructed their adherents to
resist this movement by some married woman to
flaunt immodest values.
Stoic followers educated their daughters as well as
their sons, the former being inculcated with ‘the
virtue’ which epitomized a married woman—
‘modesty’. They demanded virtuous lives of their
female adherents as well as their male counter-
parts—unlike the rest of society where an inequi-
table standard applied which did not call husbands
to account for their adultery.
Documents from the Neo-Pythagorean school also
record that older women were delighted that there
were younger wives who wanted to dress and
adorn themselves modestly rather than follow the
trends of their promiscuous looking secular sisters.
You were what you chose to wear - 1 Timothy
2:9-15
1 Timothy 2:9-15 takes us to the very heart of this
issue for the early church. There, alternative dress
codes are succinctly described—married women
are assumed to be the subject of the discussion,
given the reference to child-bearing in 2:15.
Two ways to live:
The passage commences with the injunction that
Christian women must adorn themselves
‘modestly and sensibly’ with ‘seemly apparel’ to
which is added the adornment of good works ap-
propriate to those who profess godliness, 2:9-10.
Between the reference to modest dress and good
works there is inserted a succinct discussion of the
alternative dress code. It is that of the ‘new’ wife.
Her lifestyle was promiscuous, sometimes indulg-
ing in casual sexual liaisons as her husband might
have done. Her interest was in self-gratification
and not the good deeds that enhanced the lives of
others.
Christian matrons were not to adorn themselves
with the braided hair that epitomised the loose liv-
ing woman, or gold or pearls that was likewise
part of a dress code appropriate to the hetairai. In
addition costly or transparent dress was ruled out
for the Christian wife.
Lives adorned with modesty and good works and
not the ‘come on’ appearance were the order of the
day for wives in the early Christian community in
Ephesus to which 1 Timothy is addressed. They
were what they chose to wear and the choice for
Christian wives was clear.
Contraception and abortion
Seneca, in the same letter to his mother, com-
mented on the aversion by this new breed of
women to having children. He wrote, ‘You have
never blushed for the number of children, as if it
mocked your age.…You never tried to conceal
your pregnancy as though it was indecent, nor
have you crushed the hope of children that were
being nurtured in your body.’
The use of dangerous contraceptives and abortion
was to take the lives of many married women—
first-century women married very early by West-
ern standards, some immediately on reaching pu-
berty and most others by their mid or late teens.
Soranus, a contemporary gynaecologist refused to
perform abortions as did other doctors who were
aware of its risks.
The poet, Ovid, who was the promoter of many of
the values of the ‘new’ woman speaks graphically
against this—it is thought that he himself may
have lost a mistress through it.
 She who first began the practice of tearing out her tender progeny deserved to die in her own warfare. Can
it be that, to be free of the flaws of stretch marks, you have to scatter the tragic sands of carnage? Why
will you subject your womb to the weapons of abortion and give dread poisons to the unborn? The tigress
lurking in Armenia does no such thing, nor does the lioness dare destroy her young. Yet tender girls do
so—though not with impunity; often she who kills what is in her womb dies herself.

Saved through child-bearing:

The Christian wife will be saved ‘through child-bearing if she continues in faith and love and holiness’. This
trilogy of Christian virtues counters the lifestyle of the ‘new’ woman. The grammatical construction of the
sentence makes it clear that it is through the process of pregnancy that she will be saved and not by its termi-
nation where often the opposite occurred. It is interesting to read of doctors in the early empire who would not
perform abortions.

The discussion began with a call to modesty in 2:9, and concludes with this all-embracing first-century virtue
that epitomised the married woman, for again ‘with modesty’ is singled out in 2:15. It is preceded by the three
Christian ‘virtues’ of ‘faith, hope and love’.

So there were two ways to live in the first century and in these short sentences the lifestyle of the ‘new’ wife is
contrasted with that of the modest wife.

There was a further example of the principle ‘you were what you wore’ or what you chose not to wear. In 1
Corinthians 11:2-16 women who were praying and prophesying were deliberately removing their marriage
veil while doing so, in order to be contentious — just like “new” woman. Normally this removal symbolically
indicated they were leaving the marriage for another relationship. Under Roman law they were forbidden ever
to wear the marriage veil again. Paul argues that if they wanted to look like an adulteress, they should also
publicize who they were, by having their hair cropped or shaven.

See www.romanchristianwomen.com for archaeological evidence

Further Reading:

R. A. Bauman, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge, 1992.

J. F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society. London: Croom, 1986

A. Dalby, Empire of Pleasures: Luxury and Indulgence in the Roman World. London: Routledge, 2000.
Helm, 1986..L. Llewellyn-Jones, ed., Women’s Dress in the Ancient Greek World. London and Swansea:
Duckworth and University Press of Wales, 2002
Wendy Shalit, A Return to Modesty: Discovering the lost virtue (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999).

Bruce W. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Com-
munities (Eerdmans, November, 2003)

The Revd. Dr. Bruce Winter, is the Acting Director of the Whitefield Institute and the Warden of
Tyndale House, Cambridge. He is the Director of the Institute for Early Christianity in the Greaco-
Roman World based at Tyndale, a Fellow of St Edmund’s College and was recently appointed Senior
Research Fellow, Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney.